' This appeal is directed against the judgment of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore, dated 18- 3-1981, whereby the appellant was convicted for abetment of forgery under sections 466/109 and 471, P.P.C. And sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs,500 or in default to suffer six months' R.I. Under each count. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The convict has appealed to this Court.
3. In October, 1977, Ghulam Haider Shah Sub-Inspector was posted in the Crimes Branch. On secret information that Saeed Nasarullah had secured admission in the King Edward Medical College, Lahore on the basis of a forged certificate, he drew up complaint Exh.P.W.12/A and sent it to the Police Station, Gawalmandi, Lahore for registration of the case. On the basis of the complaint, formal F.I.R. Exh.P.W.12/A-1 was recorded by Mushtaq Ahmad A.S.I.
' Ghulam Haider Shah Sub Inspector after taking permission for the investigation, proceeded to the King Edward Medical College, Lahore, and took into possession admission form Eh.P.W.1/B, a photo- stat copy of the Intermediate Certificate Exh. P.W.5/B, and the photographs Exh.P.W.5/C, Exh.P.W.5/C-1, and Exh.P.W.5/C-2 of Saeed Nasarullah acquitted accused. These documents were produced by Abdul Hamid, Junior Clerk of the King Edward Medical College, Lahore. The application of Saeed Nasarullah for the duplicate copy of the Intermediate Certificate, Bank Challan relating to the payment of fee for the certificate, counter-foil of the duplicate certificate and the result sheet bearing the fabricated result of Saeed Nasarullah produced by Hayat Mohammad, Junior Clerk of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha, were also taken into possession.
Some other documents mentioned in Exh.P.W.4/B were also taken into possession.
' As a result of all this, Mohammad Aslam Shad, Mohammad Yaseen, Mohammad Sharif, Mohammad Bashir Shad and Saeed Nasarullah were challaned under sections 420, 468, 471 read with section 109, P.P.C. Mohammad Bashir Shad and Mohammad Sharif were acquitted under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. By order, dated 4-11-1980. Muhammad Yaseen was also acquitted because his case was doubtful. So, was Saeed Nasarullah. Only Muhammad Aslam Shad appellant was convicted.
4. The prosecution examined 18 witnesses in all. Out of these, it is only the evidence of Nazar Hussain Aasi, Senior Clerk P.W.9 which is important and relevant for disposal of this appeal.
5. Nazar Hussain Aasi, Senior Clerk P.W.9 deposed that in February, 1976, he was working as Junior Clerk in the Conduct Branch. Form Exh.P.W.2/A for the supply of duplicate certificate was received by him. The relevant form and the result sheet were with the appellant. The witness after having seen the result sheet and name of the applicant, made entries Exh.P.W.2/A-2 on form Exh.P.W.2/A.
He admitted that he was a new hand and it was on the dictation of the appellant that he wrote this.
However, the duty to prepare the result sheet for this examination was of Yaseen, the acquitted accused. He was the internal tabulator. The witness said that the form Exh.P.W.2/A after having entered total marks was handed over to Muhammad Sharif, Assistant In charge, Conduct Branch.
However, he got duplicate certificate typed. He further said that in June 1969, he was working in the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education. He had not gone to see the appellant either in connection with this form or result sheet. He admitted that document Exh.P.W.3/A bore his signatures. Even the result sheet Exh.P.W.2/D contained his signatures. These were mentioned after comparison. He denied the suggestion that he was responsible for making alterations in the form and result sheet.
' This is the so-called incriminating evidence against the appellant.
6. The appellant when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the allegations. He did not produce any evidence in defence.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the evidence relied upon by the prosecution against the appellant is not sufficient in law to warrant his conviction even for abetment. Learned counsel referred to the evidence of Nazar Hussain Aasi referred to above and submitted that if it is accepted on its face value, even then the appellant could not be convicted for abetment. The aforesaid evidence did not in any way implicate the appellant.
' Nobody appeared on behalf of the State to contest this appeal which means that either the State is not serious or they think that the appeal is not worth contesting.
8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel, gone through the evidence and I am of the view that the learned counsel for the appellant rightly contended that there is not sufficient evident A against the appellant to justify his conviction for abetment. The appeal is accepted. The appellant is acquitted. He is on bail. His bail bon shall stand cancelled.